Friday, November 18, 2016

College blues: Today's news for November 18th


America has a real problem with our colleges. Whether it is due to our flawed education system feeding the colleges with a bunch of wimpy kids, or if it is the colleges themselves encouraging infantile behavior, remains to be seen. 

Fox News:
Around the nation, students are turning to the tools of toddlers as a bizarre form of therapy in the wake of Donald Trump's election last week. Colleges and universities are encouraging students to cry, cuddle with puppies and sip hot chocolate to soothe their fragile psyches, an approach some critics say would be funny if it weren't so alarming.

“This is an extreme reaction from millennials who are being forced to come to terms with the fact that we have a president that they don’t like –this is what losing feels like,” Kristin Tate, the 24-year-old author of "Government Gone Wild," told FoxNews.com. “We are grooming our students to be sensitive crybabies when we need to be showing students how to deal with world situations and how to be adults –there are no ‘safe spaces’ in the real world.”

Among the top-notch schools sending devastated students back to their early childhood: 
  • Cornell University recently hosted a “cry-in,” complete with hot chocolate and tissues for disappointed Hillary Clinton supporters.
  • University of Pennsylvania brought in a puppy and a kitten for therapeutic cuddling.
  • Tufts University held arts and crafts sessions for students.
  • University of Michigan Law School scheduled an event for this Friday called “Post-Election Self-Care With Food and Play” with “stress-busting self-care activities” including coloring, blowing bubbles, sculpting with Play-Doh and “positive card making.” 
University of Michigan spokesperson Kim Broekhuizen told FoxNews.com the law school was providing these programs based on requests from the students on campus. But on Thursday, following media scrutiny, the event was scrubbed from the school’s website and replaced with a more age-appropriate discussion of the “limitations of executive power.”
It is bad enough that our nation's college students already behave like spoiled brats with their frequent protests/tantrums over nothing. But now our colleges are encouraging this?

That is, when they aren't doing crap like this:

The College Fix:
The Michigan Review notes that a logistics sheet for Wednesday’s 1,000-student walkout at the University of Michigan – to protest the election and “increase in hate crimes and other forms of violence against marginalized folx” – prescribed specific roles for whites in attendance.

Those roles start and end with “police people” and “crowd control/marshals.”

The logistics sheet says that whites end up being quoted “overwhelmingly” when they speak alongside people of color, so anyone white who is approached for an interview should “pass it along to another person of color!”
They even have a video of the protest in question:



Note the overwhelming majority of the kids are white, so this isn't even a minority protest. It is a protest of the election results. So why the hating on whites?

Yes folks, that is what it is. We are no longer talking about equal rights any more, and slowly moving into institutionalizing racism against white people. And it is clear that at least some Democrats are complicit in this, since this protest was against what was perceived as "racist" election results, even though there is no proof yet of Trump's alleged racism.

Fortunately, this stupidity run amok is starting to draw a backlash:

The Des Moines Register:
One Iowa lawmaker has a message for any state university that spends taxpayer dollars on grief counseling for students upset at the outcome of last week’s presidential election: “Suck it up, buttercup.”

“I’ve seen four or five schools in other states that are establishing ‘cry zones’ where they’re staffed by state grief counselors and kids can come cry out their sensitivity to the election results,” said Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton. “I find this whole hysteria to be incredibly annoying. People have the right to be hysterical … on their own time.”

Kaufmann plans to introduce a piece of legislation he’s calling the “suck it up, buttercup bill” when the Legislature resumes in January.

It would target state universities that use taxpayer dollars to fund election-related sit-ins and grief counseling above and beyond what is normally available to students. Those that do would be subject to a budget cut for double the amount they spend on such activities, Kaufmann said. It also would establish new criminal penalties for protesters who shut down highways, like those who briefly closed Interstate Highway 80 in Iowa City during a protest against President-elect Donald Trump last week.
The idea of cutting taxpayer dollars from universities is a good idea by itself. But even though the reason behind this is sound, attaching strings to funding is a slippery slope, which can create bureaucratic nightmares. In addition, aren't there already laws against protesting on highways? That creates a public safety hazard, especially for the protesters. Overall, this bill is an awful idea.

However, the name of the bill alone is worth the message it sends.

Thursday, November 17, 2016

The future of AI

"This is how AI ROBOTS will take over the world - and why we need to stop [scientists] NOW" is how the headline reads at the Express, a British news website. And it does propose a reasonable theory on how artificial intelligence (AI) will surpass humankind.

But is this sensationalism accurate? Probably not.

Mind you, this isn't a denial that AI will surpass human intelligence. It should, and we should let it.

But we also shouldn't just sit idly by while it happens. At some point, we should adapt this intelligence for our own use. Somewhere between the Terminator and the Borg lies a positive human future.

Yesterday, I posted this quote:
"Our minds are finite, and yet even in these circumstances of finitude we are surrounded by possibilities that are infinite, and the purpose of human life is to grasp as much as we can out of the infinitude."--Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)
Therein lies our purpose, however out of reach it may seem. But if we can use technology to increase our grasp of the infinitude, doesn't that advance our purpose in life?

Admittedly, the Terminator possibility lies out there as a warning to us about letting our technology get too far ahead of us. And the Borg possibility reminds us not to let our own technology overwhelm our free will. But having super-intelligent AI while also being smart enough to control it, even as we remain in full control of ourselves, is a path to our ultimate goal.

God created man in His image. Now, man must create God in our image.

Or, as Peter O'Toole said in the 1985 movie Creator:
"...one of these days we'll look in to our microscope and find ourselves staring right into God's eyes, and the first one who blinks is going to lose his testicles."

Trump eats dinner, press shocked: Today's news for November 17th

Don't think that headline is a joke, because that is what passes for news these days:

CBS News:
President-elect Donald Trump has broken with protocol by leaving his Trump Tower residence without taking along his press contingent.

The Trump transition team had informed reporters and photographers at Trump Tower that there would be no movement by the president-elect for the rest of the day and evening. Then, less than two hours later, a presidential-style motorcade left the building unannounced.

That sent the press corps scrambling to find out if Trump was indeed in the motorcade and where it was heading.

It turned out that Trump was having dinner at the 21 Club. Reporters and photographers caught up with him at the midtown Manhattan restaurant but were not allowed inside. 
A spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, confirmed that Trump was having dinner with his family and she asked that the press respect that.  
Dinner requires a press contingent? Do they need to look over his shoulder and ask, "You gonna finish that?" Maybe they can catch him with Russian dressing on his salad?

Claiming it is protocol does not make it right, or even necessary. This story, as reported by multiple news outlets, makes the MSM sound like a bunch of spoiled newshounds. There are some things that just don't need to be reported.

In "real" news...

Washington Post:
Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump -- who said he has a concealed carry permit -- called for the expansion of gun rights Friday, including making those permits applicable nationwide. 
In a position paper published on his website Friday afternoon, Trump called for the elimination of gun and magazine bans, labeling them a "total failure." 
"Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own," Trump wrote.
Did I miss something? When did Trump become the heart of libertarianism? This is a position even closer to true libertarianism than Gary Johnson espoused.

Trump may be a jerk, but this presidency still has potential.

On the other side of the aisle...

Fox News:
Retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., introduced long-shot legislation Tuesday to scrap the Electoral College, in the latest protest from Democrats following last week's election where Hillary Clinton appeared to win the popular vote despite losing to Donald Trump.

Trump, as with all presidential election victors, won the election because he garnered the most Electoral College votes.

But he likely will be the fifth president in American history to do so while losing the popular vote. The last president to win the presidency in such a manner was President George W. Bush, who beat Democrat Al Gore in 2000 despite Gore gaining more overall votes.

“This is the only office in the land where you can get more votes and still lose the presidency. The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately,” Boxer said in a statement.
Because, as any good Democrat will tell you, whenever you fail in life, make a law to make sure you won't fail again. Damn the consequences, make a law!

Here you go Democrats:

In other Democratic Party news...

CNN:

If wishes were ponies, we'd all ride...
The battle for America's political soul could come down to a street brawl between two boys from Queens and Brooklyn. 
Donald Trump and Chuck Schumer are spoiling for a clash once the President-elect takes office next year and the new Democratic Senate minority leader gets his hands on his caucus after winning election on Wednesday.
I guess Schumer is Obiwan to the Democrats' Princess Leia: "Save us Chuck Schumer, you're our only hope!" 

There is just one problem with this:
Trump and Schumer -- both flamboyant, media savvy, outspoken, deal-making larger-than-life New York personalities have history. In fact, Schumer is one of the few political figures in Washington who Trump actually knows well, and the billionaire contributed to several of his new rival's election campaigns.

Schumer even rode to Trump's defense when he got embroiled in a primary spat earlier this year with Ted Cruz over "New York values." Schumer (Brooklyn) and Trump (Queens, then Manhattan), had common cause against the Texas senator.
There may not be as much difference as Democrats may hope. However, it is also possible that Trump might be more liberal than conservatives hope.

I will say this for Schumer: Unlike Schumer's predecessor Harry Reid, Schumer's IQ actually measures. With Reid, I was always worried he would forget to breathe. Maybe "worry" isn't the right word?

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Wednesday wisdom: Alfred North Whitehead

"Our minds are finite, and yet even in these circumstances of finitude we are surrounded by possibilities that are infinite, and the purpose of human life is to grasp as much as we can out of the infinitude."--Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947)

The Electoral College: Today's news for November 16th

"Waffling" doesn't begin to describe what Donald Trump does sometimes. It is even beyond a "flip-flop". What exactly is the phrase for frequent sea changes made on a dime? And considering Trump's fortune, that is a lot of dimes...

The Hill:
President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday morning defended the Electoral College as "genius," days after criticizing it. 
"The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!" Trump tweeted Tuesday morning. 
He also refuted arguments that he should have lost the presidential race because Hillary Clinton defeated him in the popular vote, tweeting that "If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily."
Trump infamously called the Electoral College a "disaster for democracy" during the night of the 2012 election, when it appeared President Obama would lose the popular vote but still win the presidency. Obama ended up winning the popular vote as well when all votes were tallied. 
In recent days, a lot of people have been calling for the trashing of the Electoral College, due to Hillary Clinton losing it, but winning the popular vote. Both the Electoral College and direct popular vote have their flaws, but Trump nails the main virtue of the Electoral College in his statement above: If we only had a popular vote deciding presidential elections, no candidate would waste their time outside of the large population centers. Ohio and Florida would rarely see a presidential candidate.

On the other hand...

KGW:
Most of the 112 protesters arrested in Portland last week didn’t vote in Oregon, according to state election records. Approximately 30 percent did cast a ballot in Oregon or in another state. 
At least seventy-nine demonstrators either didn’t turn in a ballot or weren’t registered to vote in the state. 
Following Tuesday's presidential election of Donald Trump, thousands of people took to the streets in downtown Portland for five straight nights. The activity included at least one night that the police declared to be a riot, with more than $1 million in property damage. The bulk of the arrests happened on Friday and Saturday evenings as protesters faced off against police. 
KGW compiled a list of the 112 people arrested by the Portland Police Bureau during recent protests. Those names and ages, provided by police, were then compared to state voter logs by Multnomah County Elections officials. 
Records show 39 of the protesters arrested were registered in the state but didn’t return a ballot for the November 8 election. Thirty-five of the demonstrators taken into custody weren’t registered to vote in Oregon.  
Kevin Grigsby was one of 71 arrested during the Saturday night protest.  He said he didn't do anything wrong, but told KGW he also did not vote. 
"I did not (vote) and the reason why is because we know that the electoral college is really what matters the most. And I think that we need to change that because your vote doesn’t matter if you don’t have enough electoral college points.," said Grigsby. 
Ignoring the hypocrisy of these protesters for a moment, Grigsby's comment ignores the huge flaw in the popular vote: If you think your vote doesn't matter for the electoral college, when your vote is only outweighed by the rest of the voters in your state, what do you think about your vote being outweighed by the 50 to 100 million other voters in the entire country?

Back to the hypocrisy of the protesters:
Another protester said those arrested are not representative of the thousands who took to the streets last week. 
“You just look at your sample and it’s the people who got arrested. And the people who got arrested, I just don’t think they’re representative of the majority of the people who are out protesting.”
That may be true. Although one has to wonder why this protester didn't (or wouldn't) give their name?

In other Trumped-up news...

Salon:
Republicans, despite prattling on endlessly about the danger of budget deficits during the President Obama administration, are now ready to embrace unprecedented deficit spending under Donald Trump. 
“There is now a real risk that we will see an onslaught of deficit-financed goodies — tax cuts, infrastructure spending, more on defense — all in the name of stimulus, but which in reality will massively balloon the debt,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, in an interview with Politico.
Counter-question: Was Salon running editorials like this when Obama was running up the debt to bailout Wall Street, among his myriad of other big government ideas? And where was Salon when Republicans allegedly obstructed Obama, yet the government debt continued to grow to historic levels?

Isn't fascinating how the progressive MSM always manages to discover fiscal conservatism when a Republican is in office, but never for a Democrat.

Mind you, this doesn't excuse Trump. It only puts things in perspective for fiscal conservatives: When you vote for a Republican, you are wasting your vote just the same as if you voted for a Democrat.

Let us  move on to the rumor mill...

The Hill:
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team is considering making Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) the next attorney general, according to a new report.

Cruz discussed a possible role in Trump's upcoming administration at a meeting in Trump Tower in New York City Tuesday, a person familiar with the matter told Bloomberg Politics.

CNN's Jim Acosta reported that a source told him Cruz was on a "long short list" of potential attorney general picks.

Cruz visited Trump to offer assistance during the president-elect's transition talks, a transition aide told NBC News earlier in the day, adding that the Texas senator is not being considered for a Cabinet post.
(hat tip to ReactionGIFs for the gif)

Not...going...to happen.

Seriously, Trump is well-known for carrying grudges. The possibility of a Cruz cabinet post ranks somewhere below a Hillary Clinton cabinet post. At least Trump likes Hillary.

Moving right along...
Rudy Giuliani, a former federal prosecutor, is purportedly another option for attorney general. 
Reports emerged Monday, however, that Trump's team considers the former GOP mayor of New York City the favorite for secretary of State instead.
To reiterate: Not....going...to happen. However, if Trump does make Rudy the secretary of state, that will be a head-scratcher, considering Rudy's knowledge of foreign affairs ranks somewhere between Gary Johnson and Homer Simpson.

Finally, yet another post-election analysis of Hillary's epic failure:

The American Mirror:
Move over James Comey.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has a new culprit for its loss to Donald Trump: Self-loathing, sexist women.

During an appearance on MSNBC on Monday, former Clinton campaign communications director Jess McIntosh claimed it was women with “internalized misogyny” who couldn’t bring themselves to vote to elect the first woman president.
Phrase of the day: "internalized misogyny". To paraphrase Winston Churchill, never in the field of human conflict have so many syllables been dedicated to the epic failure by people with such low IQ's.

How far down will the Clintonistas reach to find excuses for their failure? Now they are blaming one of their core constituencies. Time to roll out the bear for them...

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Bernie's "racist" tweet

While I don't agree with Bernie Sanders much, he does have a valid point.

Even though minorities had a big impact on both of President Obama's elections, Hillary Clinton doesn't have the luxury of dark skin. As much as people complain about Donald Trump and his racist supporters, where was the minority support for Obama's hand-picked successor? I guess she wasn't dark enough for some people.

The even greater irony is she targeted her campaign at minorities, almost ignoring the white middle class.

On a side note, is everyone going to call Sanders a racist over that comment? If Trump said it, the "I told you he was racist" cries would be loud and clear. But no, I don't think Sanders was any more racist than Trump, who I don't consider a racist.

Steve Bannon and the SCOTUS: Today's news for November 15th

Washington Post:
President-elect Donald Trump's decision to appoint Stephen Bannon as his chief strategist in the White House has drawn a sharp rebuke from political strategists who see in Bannon a controversial figure too closely associated with the “alt-right” movement, which white nationalists have embraced.
In the first place, just because racists do something doesn't make it evil or wrong. One of the virtues of alt-right media is that it is frequently the only media source speaking "truth to power", which is sadly lacking in the MSM today. Journalism should challenge The Powers That Be, not hop into bed with them.

Admittedly, there is some edgy reporting done in the alt-right media. It isn't outright racism, but it does skirt the edges. However, there are times when they are the only source reporting a story, and they aren't false stories either. They are stories that need to be told, but the MSM won't touch them because they are backed by moneyed interests which oppose the ugly truths about themselves. Like the old cliche says, you don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

Continuing:
Bannon, who was the executive chairman of Breitbart News before joining the Trump campaign in August, will serve as chief strategist and senior counselor for Trump; that will give Bannon authority over the strategic direction of the White House. Bannon will assume a similar role to that of Karl Rove during George W. Bush’s administration and recently by longtime strategist John Podesta under President Obama.
Rove and Podesta weren't controversial, were they? Any White House chief strategist needs to be someone who will tell the president exactly how things are. Sycophants need not apply.

More:
The announcement has produced intense hand-wringing in Washington and sharp denunciations from political observers and strategists critical of Breitbart News's close association with the alt-right, a fringe conservative movement saturated with racially insensitive rhetoric and elements of outright white nationalism.  
Elements of white nationalism? Sorry, I missed that part. While I don't visit Breitbart every day, I have yet to see anything "white nationalist" there. What I have seen is news reporting that thumbs its nose at power. THAT is what real journalism should do.

As for "racially insensitive rhetoric", truth is not a racially sensitive thing. If you want racial equality, all skin colors should be treated equally, and that includes both positive and negative treatment. I am sorry if that offends you, but truth is a blunt instrument, which occasionally hits us over the head, regardless of the skin color of your head.

True journalism should report the truth, and not bow to the forces of political correctness.

And still more:
Bannon’s personal history also has been mired in controversy. Shortly after he joined the Trump campaign, court documents revealed that his ex-wife, Mary Louise Piccard, had accused Bannon of domestic violence and anti-Semitic language in 2007. (The documents were obtained and first reported by the New York Daily News.) 
“The biggest problem he had with Archer is the number of Jews that attend,” Piccard said in a statement to the court. “He said that he doesn't like the way they raise their kids to be 'whiny brats' and that he didn't want the girls going to school with Jews.” Bannon has denied the accusations.
Because nobody has ever made a false accusation in a divorce proceeding. Seriously, it is hard to see that as damning evidence.

However:
Ben Shapiro, a former Breitbart editor who worked closely with Bannon, called him a “legitimately sinister figure” in an article he published on the Daily Wire after Bannon joined the Trump campaign. 
“Many former employees of Breitbart News are afraid of Steve Bannon. He is a vindictive, nasty figure, infamous for verbally abusing supposed friends and threatening enemies,” Shapiro wrote. 
So? I do that too. Verbally abusing friends doesn't mean anything. They abuse me back.

Threatening enemies? That is what is known as "normal human behavior".

That said, maybe Bannon is a truly awful boss. then again, maybe Shapiro has an axe to grind. We don't really know.

But we need to view Bannon's appointment with this in mind:
Bannon's appointment brings into focus many of the uncomfortable racial tensions surrounding Trump's campaign. Throughout the campaign, Trump's critics regularly accused him of using anti-immigrant language and racial grievances to motivate his supporters, charges that he denied and dismissed. He expressed surprise when asked about racial slurs that were being used against African Americans and other minority groups since his election during an interview with CBS's "60 minutes” that aired Sunday. 
“I am very surprised to hear that. I hate to hear that, I mean, I hate to hear that,” Trump said in the interview, which was taped Friday. "I would say don't do it, that's terrible, because I'm going to bring this country together. 
“I am so saddened to hear that. And I say stop it, if it helps. I will say this, and I will say right to the cameras: Stop it,” Trump added.
Keep in mind, if anyone had asked Hitler about abuse of Jews, he never would have said anything comparable to what Trump said. The racist allegations against Trump strike me as Leftist propaganda, and nothing more than that. If true racists like Trump, that is their choice.

As for Bannon, maybe he is a "vindictive" and "nasty" SOB like people describe him. But you need people like that around you, because they will be brutally honest with you.

In other Trump news...

CNN:
For the first time since winning the election, Donald Trump has weighed in on two of the most controversial social issues the Supreme Court has taken on ever: gay marriage, and abortion.

His answers could leave conservatives worried.

Trump indicated he's "fine" with the high court's opinion legalizing same-sex marriage and called it "settled," but committed to appointing justices who want to change the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling affirming abortion rights.

The inconsistency in the question -- what is settled law? -- is sure to concern judicial conservatives who fear he may not live up to his promise to fill the empty Supreme Court seat with someone in the mold of their hero, Justice Antonin Scalia.
Above all else, judicial conservatives hope that Trump's eventual nominees to the Court will apply the Constitution as they believe it is written and enforce the limits on government power. They see both the 2015 same-sex marriage ruling -- Obergefell v. Hodges -- and Roe v. Wade as total failures in that regard. The fact that Trump interprets the cases differently might be some cause of concern.
Ironically, Trump's views on this are almost libertarian (small "L" libertarian, not to be confused with the big "L" Libertarian Party).

In recent years, small "L" libertarians have been reviewing the question of abortion as a right, thanks in large part to the views espoused by both Ron and Rand Paul, who have opposed abortion on the grounds it violates the human rights of the fetus. As we have seen over the years, thanks to advances in medical technology, fetuses are becoming viable outside the womb (admittedly with extreme medical intervention) at earlier and earlier stages in development. Within the next century, it is entirely possible that a fetus could become viable instantly. If so, the fetus could easily be considered a full human, entitled to all the rights any human should have, including the right to live.

If that happens, killing a fetus based on a "right to privacy" would be as inane as allowing murder based on it. We can wait for the medical technology to make fetuses viable at any age, or we can anticipate the inevitable truth that fetal potential overrules the "right to privacy".

On the other hand, gay marriage is a tricky subject for conservatives, who tend to think of marriage in more religious terms. Conservatives need to recognize the difference between religious marriage and government marriage.

In most religions, marriage is clearly centered around procreation at its core. That isn't to say they ignore "love between man and woman", because that is also an important factor to a normally functioning family. However, the "go forth and multiply" order clearly takes precedence. On top of that, most religions frown upon gay relationships, when they don't call them a sin. Some religions have evolved to be more accepting of gay relationships, but that is between people and their religion.

On the other hand, government marriage is all about legal contracts. Because of all the legal implications of marriage, marriage is practically a legal contract of its own. Government marriage is NOT about procreation at all. While it may be descended from the concept of religious marriage, it is a legal concept now. As such, it cannot recognize any limitations on sex, sexual orientation, race, or anything else (although the taboo about close relatives marrying might remain for awhile, don't be surprised if that gets tossed out eventually). Ergo, gay marriage should be legal, which most libertarians also espouse.

Trump gets this one right too, with an almost libertarian view on the law. There is hope for this president yet.